|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 3, 2023 16:59:13 GMT -6
That moment when you put a 16" shell into a turret and flash fire it but the whole ship doesn't explode so 3 minutes later you put a second shell into the same turret to flashfire it again and cause the ship to properly explode.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Feb 24, 2023 15:43:13 GMT -6
Well that was a ridiculously effective 16" AP shell and the longest "hit" message I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Sept 26, 2022 10:22:57 GMT -6
Got an IPad for drawing and decided to draw a moment from one of my RTW2 battles as the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 19, 2022 19:59:06 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Well, it happened again, except this time I was on the receiving end. Did not expect this sort of thing to happen in 1913 with 3 inches of TT armor. Honestly, I'm getting close to submitting a bug report. Might do it a bit later. Saved the save and grabbed the ship design and some save data from the incident in the previous post. Large HE in game can generally pen up to 4" of armor, not sure what the penetration range for 8" is though I should've said that the bug report was because William asked for one if stuff like this kept happening, and even them I'm far from confident it is a bug, but rather something that should be investigated to see if the game is working properly or not.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 19, 2022 19:19:54 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I'm just going to let this image speak for itself... Well, it happened again, except this time I was on the receiving end. Did not expect this sort of thing to happen in 1913 with 3 inches of TT armor. Honestly, I'm getting close to submitting a bug report. Might do it a bit later. Saved the save and grabbed the ship design and some save data from the incident in the previous post. (EDIT: I do not want to imply that I think this is a bug, but I do remember William asking to report it if it keeps happening as it could be one, and given that this has now happened to me twice, once in 2 back-to-back games, and that it also happened to a forum member, I'm starting to get suspicious that it's at least worth investigating) EDIT:
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 20, 2022 21:09:45 GMT -6
One thing which I think could be cool for RTW3 is being able to do joint fleet exercises with allied nations; including them within your own exercises and maybe having an event to take part with another nation hosting them, which incurs some cost, although reduced for you compared to a normal exercise, and gains experience. Maybe having said event generate a battle, or allow you to pick your force for your side of the exercise
This would go some way to representing regular NATO exercises done during the Cold War, which would fall within the scope of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 14, 2022 23:16:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 22, 2021 7:37:44 GMT -6
One idea for rebuilds is a checkbox that allows you to build a new bow over the old one, similar to what the Italians did when rebuilding their battleships.
It would be expensive and require long rebuilds, maybe causing a 1 knot decrease in speed, but would add on extra tonnage and update the ship hull to modern hydrodynamic technology (or maybe you get 80% of the improvement or something of that sort). It can only be done once per ship.
So thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 22, 2021 14:17:01 GMT -6
I've still never seen this before. Usually when a battlecruiser detonates it's due to a large caliber shell, maybe a 10" to 8" is believable if they skimped on armor although I'm not sure I've seen that happen yet. But a 6 inch HE shell through 2.5" of turret top detonating a battlecruiser? I have never seen anything similar to this before. Also checked my 6" guns armor penetration table; it could only go through .688 inches of deck at 12K yards. So not even the AP could make this shot. Relax, I was joking. Also, it's technically possible (albeit highly unlikely) for a 2" HE shell to penetrate 26" of armour in-game. It represents the tiny chance that you might hit a weak spot in the armour. For example, your 6" HE through the 2.5" turret roof armour probably hit the rangefinder aperture, or some other such weak point. It's not actually penetrating the armour, just hitting a point where there isn't any. I mean, HE does behave differently than AP, which was probably why it was able to get through the TT armor. Was still one hell of a lucky shot, hitting at maximum range on the right spot and getting the right event.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 20, 2021 23:05:31 GMT -6
I'm pretty certain 6" high explosive isn't supposed to flash fire enemy battlecruisers but what do I know. ...You clearly haven't played this game very much. I've still never seen this before. Usually when a battlecruiser detonates it's due to a large caliber shell, maybe a 10" to 8" is believable if they skimped on armor although I'm not sure I've seen that happen yet. But a 6 inch HE shell through 2.5" of turret top detonating a battlecruiser? I have never seen anything similar to this before. Also checked my 6" guns armor penetration table; it could only go through .688 inches of deck at 12K yards. So not even the AP could make this shot.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 20, 2021 13:13:41 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I'm just going to let this image speak for itself... ...You're surprised? I'm pretty certain 6" high explosive isn't supposed to flash fire enemy battlecruisers but what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 20, 2021 11:46:11 GMT -6
I'm just going to let this image speak for itself...
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jul 20, 2021 10:27:53 GMT -6
> Poor shiphandler: More likely to get into collisions or other mishaps. Time to aggressively recruit new commanders until I can get all my cruisers going RAMMING SPEED How do ship sinkings interact with COs? I saw no mention of officers getting killed when flagships sink, which historically happened fairly often. Likewise, being able to fish a CO out of the water while picking up survivors might actually make me consider doing it for more than just roleplay reasons (albeit while commanding at a reduced effectiveness for a while afterwards!) While the ability to create divisions is an improvement in many ways, my immediate concern is how limited they are. A big part of why, personally, I want the ability to edit OOB prior to loading in is so that we can create things like specific destroyer leaders or carrier escorts and have them consistently fill that role. If I'm limited to only carriers in a CARDIV (which is admittedly fair; what I'm hoping for would be at the TF level), I can't design a "carrier escort cruiser" and have it more consistently show up in battle alongside them because it can't be placed in the same group. While I understand that it would be taxing on the battle generator, having an option to group divisions into task forces that are more likely to show up in battle together would allow for much more variety in design without feeling constrained by the knowledge that the ships you're building to synergize with a specific role in a larger fleet will almost certainly end up in a solo fight, or vice versa. Officers can get killed during combat, & it is more likely to happen if their ship sinks. I cant comment on possible Task Forces at this time as we have not covered that ground yet. Idea on the officers bit: they can be captured if it's the enemy who rescues survivors. Also be careful in implementing officer death correctly; the chance they die should increase with the ship sinking rapidly, either from explosion or rapid flooding or flotation loss. The longer it takes their ship to go from sinking to sunk the worse odds they should have. The sooner their rescue the better their odds, especially if the ship is still afloat when they're rescued. And worse weather should have an impact too. Not being rescued by the end of battle should increase the chance of death except if the battle has ended recently compared to their ship going down. So yeah, getting officer death right could be a bit tricky with a lot of factors determining realistic rescue chance.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jul 20, 2021 10:16:33 GMT -6
Honestly this is some amazing news, and after reading it I want to make a few suggestions building off of what you have: Firstly, I think there should be an officer trait for having good damage control. Maybe another role for leading other divisions effectively too? Secondly, maybe have the player's ability to determine the intelligence and traits of their officers be limited until they've been assigned for a bit? You probably want to be careful about the players just assigning objectively the best officers to roles. (Note: well connected and poorly connected should be visible matter what. Maybe allowing for up to 2 traits would be good, or having these 2 be in a separate pool from the main battle trait with one of the two applied randomly?) Thirdly, balance the prestige cost well. Prestige balance is going to see limited change with different fleet sizes but since larger fleets will need more officers and as such more reassigning on average it may need less of a prestige cost to do so. Maybe you have a budgetary cost no matter what but you only get a prestige cost demoting well-connected officers, promoting poorly-connected officers when well-comnected officers exist, or making changes to capital ship divisions, especially against well-served officers. But messing with DD division officers shouldn't really have prestige penalties for example. Fourthly, towards divisions themselves, it seems limiting to only allow for BB/B and BC/CA pairings. Some suggestions: BB/B/BC/CA should all be allowed in the same division. Fast BBs may get value out of being paired with BCs, likewise old BCs could be more valuable in the line of battle, or if things are desperate or divided amongst multiple different theaters capital ship numbers may be limited and a hodgepodge division needed to be made. CAs have no size limitation and as such can be built as capital units by the player, so they should be included too. Of course your dividing lines are good as the default for AI generated divisions. Of course, for grabbing initial ships from other divisions if a BB or B is present then only other BBs and Bs can be grabbed. CA/CL should be allowed to be combined, since small to medium CAs can be roughly as capable and useful in the same role as a large CL. Maybe put a 20K ton limitation on the CAs in such a group? CV/CVL/AV should be allowed. No real explanation needed here. AS shouldn't be grapped as replacement units though. CL/DD should be allowed for small CLs, with tonnage defined by era and steadily increasing over time, and slow CLs being unable to be used as replacement ships for said divisions. This would allow for those cruisers designed as destroyer leaders to function as such. So there's some ideas. What you have already would be a major improvement on the game so I'm largely just spitballing here.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jul 3, 2021 20:46:07 GMT -6
I've had a few thoughts about some ship design decisions made in real life which just aren't made either at all, as-often, or for the same reasons in Rule the Waves 2 and thought I'd just post them here.
1: Tumblehome checkbox There exists a checkbox you can check for "tumblehome hull," giving your ship a hullform more similar to French pre-dreads or cruisers from the pre-dreadnought era. This hull design increases stability when undamaged whilst decreasing stability when damaged; so the effects should be an increased accuracy and maybe fire rate but the ship takes a heavy penalty to accuracy and fire rate with significant flotation loss, as well as having less overall flotation points in general.
2: Wing mount encouragement without steam turbines. The reason hexagonal layouts got used so often early in dreadnoughts was due to the massive amounts of machinery needed for triple expansion engines. It might be good to offer weight savings for wing turrets vs centerline turrets for ships with high percentages of tonnage spent on machinery, especially pre-steam-turbine. Cross-deck-firing may limit this effect.
3: Pensacola-type layouts Right now turret layouts are encouraged to have larger turrets on deck level and smaller turrets superfiring above them. This makes sense for a slow or standard speed battleship, but with faster ships going with the reverse approach, with the larger turret above the smaller turret, can allow for thinner lines, and as such with higher weight percentages of machinery it may make sense to give weight penalties for giving A and Y turrets (and 1, 2, 3, and 4) more guns (and B and X if they have 2 or more guns than A and Y turrets), especially at larger calibers. Maybe at a small cost to flotation. There could be a tech to reduce these penalties in the late-game on with bow-shapes like the Iowa.
|
|